I'll correct some misconceptions for you. -Apple never sued Samsung in the UK. Samsung sued Apple. -The appeals court actually said they would not have even allowed Judge Biriss order for a public statement to stand, other than because of the publicity generated by Biriss' statement that Samsung was not cool. They said that was the only reason the would allow the order for a public statement to stand.

Actually, the court did not say adding additional facts was not allowed. They ruled what the statement should include NOT what it should be in it's entirety. Apple didn't editorialize, they included factual statements, most of which came from the original judge. And again, you seem to have a problem with the fact that Apple added a link to their main page for their statement. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE ORDERED TO DO. How can that be a violation?

Have you even read the ruling from the appeal? -They did not change the text of the apology. Actually, they was NO APOLOGY ORDERED. -They actually cut and pasted exactly the text that was ordered -They put the link on their main page exactly as order by the appeals court. Again, read the ruling. The court ordered the link to appear on the main page. -The used the exactly font and size ordered -No apology was ordered. They were ordered to post the courts decision in...

The original Bloomberg report quotes the judges as saying Apple's notice included statements that were untrue and incorrect. That's plain English. Even someone without much of a grasp of the language could understand that, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/apple-ordered-to-change-notice-in-u-k-samsung-case.html Hence my question: why parts were untrue and incorrect. Still waiting. (and please don't lecture me on not understanding the language when you...

Interesting. That actually demonstrates my point, As I have repeatedly asked: exactly what part of Apple statement was untrue? The court did not say Apple could not add additional facts. They didn't even say Apple couldn't editorialize the statement, which the didn't do. They simply added additional facts, most of which were directly from the court record of judge Biriss' original ruling. So, they posted what they were instructed to posted, how and where they were...

For those that agree with this new ruling, a question. The judges explained their ruling as being based on Apple breaching their order by including untrue and incorrect statements in their notice. Please list for us all of the incorrect and untrue statements in Apple's notice.
We'll wait.
Until then, without any untrue and incorrect statements, the judge's excuses for this new ruling appear to be based on personal bias and feelings of being insulted (wrongly)...

No one said it couldn't happen. They said nothing should happen because Apple obeyed the order exactly as given. The judges were convinced that Apple offended them and are acting out on that. No shortage of softheaded judges in the UK.